LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Published 5:29 pm, Tuesday, July 2, 2013

ETJ comments not welcome

Editor:

The mayor of Schertz wants to disallow selected groups from presenting before City Council. In this case, it was a resident commenting on the city budget, but who knows who will be next to find their comments unwelcome?

An example of this occurred June 25 when a resident who lives in Schertz's extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) made the suggestions that the city continue to publish Schertz Magazine, budget for improvements to the city's website, and hire a web manager to improve and maintain the site.

Applause came from council and the public. The remarks conformed to the constraints of the hearing of residents. However, the mayor's response did not.

Most Popular

The agenda states that responses to an issue brought up by a resident shall be limited to statements of specific factual information given to an inquiry, a recitation of existing policy in response to an inquiry.

The record shows Mayor Michael Carpenter's response was, “Each time you come here you say you live in the ETJ which currently means you don't contribute taxes to the city, but you are willing to tell these folks how we should spend their money. I don't know where we would be without your vitriol in the evenings.”

The mayor's comments were shocking, unprofessional and demeaning of the office. Citizens of the ETJ are contributing significantly to the betterment of Schertz.

It is a shame that the mayor accepts their contributions but would prefer that they remain silent.

The June 27 Herald included an article from a New York lawyer that criticized those who wrongly took exception with a young man who sang the national anthem at a Spurs game simply because he was Hispanic. He did a great job with a song that is known to be hard to sing.

No question they were wrong, as was U.S. Rep. Don Young for using the term “wetbacks.” But the author slipped off the rails when he criticized U.S. Rep. Steve King for using the term “illegal aliens” when referring to people who are in this country illegally. They are not simply “undocumented.” They have broken the law which makes their behavior illegal.

He goes on to confuse the term “immigrants” with the term “illegal immigrants” and infers that those of us who come down on the side of U.S. law and not the lawbreakers are, for some unexplained reason, prejudiced.

Virtually all of us in this country descend from immigrants, but not from illegal immigrants, and the two terms are polar opposites. Because it is generally known that a large majority of the 11-plus million “illegals” in this country are Hispanic, it is surprising to me that the Hispanic community isn't more critical of the illegals, as this issue does not reflect well on them when they support the illegals.

As an officer of the court, the New York lawyer should be more concerned with upholding the law instead of changing it to appease a special interest group.